Giants may block A's move to San Jose

For months, a strong sense of optimism has ruled the A's pursuit of a new stadium in San Jose.

Not so fast, say the Giants. They own the territorial rights to Santa Clara County and won't relinquish them without a fight.

The feeling in the Giants' camp is that the A's think if they just keep saying they're optimistic about a new stadium, it will happen.

"I think it's wishful thinking," said Peter Magowan, the Giants' former managing general partner. "I don't think they'll get anywhere with it. I'd be surprised if a different result were to come about."

Major League Baseball is apparently in no hurry to alter the Bay Area's baseball landscape, either. According to multiple sources, including A's owner Lew Wolff, the A's stadium issue is not on the agenda for the owners meetings in Scottsdale, Ariz., in two weeks.

"That's my understanding," Wolff said.

Officials from both the A's and Giants are prohibited by MLB Commissioner Bud Selig from discussing the A's stadium situation, but Magowan, who still owns a small stake in the Giants, said that he is entirely up to date on the issue and that he does not believe that the A's will be allowed to move to San Jose.

The A's have had attendance problems in recent years, and hope a new stadium will make them more competitive.

The A's have had attendance problems in recent years, and hope a new stadium will make them more competitive.

Photo: Carlos Avila Gonzalez, The Chronicle

Photo: Carlos Avila Gonzalez, The Chronicle

Image
1of/4

Caption

Close

Image 1 of 4

The A's have had attendance problems in recent years, and hope a new stadium will make them more competitive.

The A's have had attendance problems in recent years, and hope a new stadium will make them more competitive.

Photo: Carlos Avila Gonzalez, The Chronicle

Giants may block A's move to San Jose

1 / 4

Back to Gallery

Faith in Selig

"I'd be amazed that, with all the public reassurances we've received from Bud Selig over the years, he would change his mind on this matter," Magowan said. "He's a man of his word, a man of integrity, and he has been clear and direct in the past about reaffirming our territorial rights. It's hard to see how he would not be bound by what he's said, as many times as he has been on the record in support of those rights."

Magowan, however, knows that pledges can disappear. He said that he met with Wolff when the A's current ownership group, which includes John Fisher of the Gap, purchased the club in 2005. Well aware of Wolff's background as a San Jose developer, Magowan said he asked Wolff about the group's potential interest in Santa Clara County.

"We had a drink at the Fairmont hotel, and Lew assured me ... that he was never going to San Jose," Magowan said. "I kept notes of the conversation and made a memo for my files while it was fresh in my mind: He said they had interest in Las Vegas but they had no interest in San Jose. Bud knows all of this."

Wolff said that he doesn't remember such a conversation, but, he said, "At that time, we did not consider San Jose. This verifies that we weren't thinking that because we thought we'd get a new stadium in Oakland."

Wolff contends that the A's have explored every possibility within the team's territory, including numerous options in Oakland and one extended look at a site in Fremont. None has panned out to the A's satisfaction, and club officials no longer believe that Oakland is a viable market. Wolff said Las Vegas is "not an option."

San Jose option

There was widespread belief that the A's stadium would be discussed at the owners meetings, in part because the team entered into a land-purchase agreement last month with the city of San Jose; the A's have an option to buy 5 acres downtown, near HP Pavilion, at a reduced rate: $7 million for land that the city had acquired for $25 million and is currently appraised at $14 million.

January also was thought to be a sensible time frame for the owners to look at the A's stadium matter because the team has waited so long. Selig formed a panel to investigate a new ballpark nearly three years ago, and, to date, no report has been issued, although the A's have been told that the panel's work is completed. The A's assumption has been that if the territorial rights were a deal breaker, the panel would not have been formed.

In addition, MLB focused on the Dodgers' bankruptcy and the Astros' sale at the last owners meetings, in November, so it seemed as if the docket might be freed up to finally address Oakland's request to move into the Giants' territory. Any change to territorial rights would take a three-quarters vote of baseball's owners, but votes are not always tied to meetings. They also may be conducted by phone.

No other two-team market has territorial rights assigned. The A's gave the Giants the rights to Santa Clara County in 1993, when the Giants had their own stadium vote on the ballot in San Jose. The Giants insist that when they financed AT&T Park, all agreements with lenders were based on the team's current territorial rights, including corporate-rich Silicon Valley.

"Those long-term commitments wouldn't be there without that," Magowan said. "Investors would not have taken the risk if there was belief that our chief competitor could create a shiny new stadium right in the heart of our fan base."

A's struggles

There is thought that, despite the Giants' obligations on their debt service, a majority of big-league owners might be tired of paying the A's hefty revenue-sharing checks - more than $30 million last season. A new stadium in the 10th-largest city in the country probably would put money into the revenue-sharing pot. The Giants argue that they might then be taking out of the kitty rather than contributing. San Francisco must draw 3.3 million to operate at its current level, according to club officials. The Giants sold out every game last season and drew 3.387 million.

Despite the commissioner's decree not to discuss the topic publicly, the A's have begun to press the issue, making it a central conversation point for all personnel matters. General manager Billy Beane has taken a more prominent role in the efforts to get a stadium decision, and he traveled to Scottsdale with other A's officials to meet with Selig in early November.

Though Foxsports.com reported that Selig also planned to meet with Giants officials, that has not happened, according to Magowan.

The A's have traded two prominent pitchers this month, All-Stars Trevor Cahill and Gio Gonzalez, and both times, Beane emphasized that the moves were tied to the team's need for a new stadium and increased revenues.

Oakland Mayor Jean Quan said this month that if the A's move into San Francisco's territory, litigation could last 10 years. Two years ago, San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera sent Major League Baseball a letter warning against tampering with the territorial rights, citing long-term, binding legal agreements between the city and the team.

Many obstacles

Should the A's get the OK for San Jose, there would be more hurdles to climb. The team has yet to detail plans to privately finance a stadium that would cost an estimated $400 million. The land-purchase agreement must go to a public vote, and Better Sense San Jose, a grassroots taxpayer organization opposed to a new stadium downtown, argues that there could be $70 million in additional expenditures for the city. That could hurt the A's chances in a public vote, given the current economic climate and San Jose's other fiscal issues.

"Basically, it boils down to the fact that San Jose is in a financial mess, just short of crisis, and a new stadium is a bad idea," said Marc Morris, a spokesman for Better Sense San Jose.

Wolff said he has not sent out any signals about the A's expectations for a stadium decision, and he said he has no idea where a recent report indicating that he's "confident" the team will get the OK originated.